EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE - TURKEY
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE - TURKEY
PROJECT TITLE: Strengthen the longer-term resilience of refugees and migrants by improving the level of their emotional, mental, and physical wellbeing.
Closing date: 20/10/2019
Terms of Reference
Consultancy Assignment: External Final Evaluation
Name of Project: Strengthen the longer-term resilience of refugees and migrants by improving the level of their emotional, mental, and physical wellbeing
Submit Application to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Application Deadline: 20 OCTOBER, 2019
Introduction and Background Information
Origins of request
Dunya Doktorlari (Medecins Du Monde Turkey) is launching a call for an external project evaluator
The final evaluation of the European Commission’s DG - European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) project will assess the achievements and best practice of the project implementation while highlighting areas of improvement and lessons learned to inform the upcoming programs in Turkey. Through this evaluation, DDD will assess the impact of the project and based on the results and recommendations that will be formulated, improve the quality of future interventions. The evaluation should focus on the lessons learned and guide decision-making process for future similar projects.
At the final stage of implementation, DDD would like to get key information not only about the activities conducted but also the modalities of implementation as well as the geographical areas of intervention, the quality of the services provided, etc.
Brief introduction to the project
Since the start of the Syrian crisis, Turkey has gradually established a strong asylum framework through the Law on Foreigners and International Protection and the Temporary Protection Regulation, not only attempting to address the immediate humanitarian needs of refugees, but also envisioning to building up the resilience of the displaced population by offering health care and education, and with plans for enabling Syrians to gain access to the labor market.
Syrian refugees under Temporary Protection law are provided with the same health care services as Turkish nationals, whilst health insurance is also being covered by the Government of Turkey (GoT). GoT ensures availability of and access to healthcare services in provinces with the highest proportion and/or number of Syrian people by the end of 2019. More than 500 Migrant Health Centers, 26 mobile health units and 5 cancer screening units are to provide primary healthcare services for up to 2 million persons.
Despite those services, the scale of needs combined with the gaps in access to health services (lack of information, communication/translation barriers, cultural differences, etc.) remains a challenge to be overcome for refugees and migrants. DDD, in collaboration with its partner Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations (UOSSM) is aiming at complementing the health services provided by the GoT. This includes Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) and Physiotherapy and Physical Rehabilitation (PTR) that are be implemented through Mental Health and Psychosocial Centers (MHPSS centers), and Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Centers (PTRC). Within the project funded by ECHO that is the subject of evaluation, DDD and its implementing partners delivered services within three main area; MHPSS services, Primary Health Care (PHC) services through mobile medical units and physiotherapy and rehabilitation care (PTRC) services. MHPPSS services are delivered in three provinces and four centers; two in Istanbul, one in Izmir, one in Reyhanli district of Hatay province and PTRC services in two centers within two provinces namely; Reyhanli district of Hatay province and in Gaziantep. PHC services are only delivered in Izmir province at areas where displaced population live and cannot access to health services. In addition to those specialized services, a referral mechanism has been developed in each center to refer unmet needs to relevant actors within each operational area.
Evaluation Objectives and Target Readership
The objectives of this final external evaluation are:
To assess the relevance of the action in regard to the beneficiaries needs and the country situation
To measure the achievement of the general objective and results and identify the reasons underlining these achievements/non-achievements (strengths and weaknesses)
To assess the partnership with the local NGO (UOSSM) and draw recommendations for the future.
To assess the accountability towards users in the project centers
To propose recommendations for future programs, strategic orientations and lessons learned
Location: İzmir, Manisa, İstanbul, Hatay -Reyhanli, Hatay-Antakya, Gaziantep and Kilis in Turkey.
Period: From 1st of January 2018 to 31st of September 2019
The evaluation will be shared with ECHO and DDD SMT. Reporting language will be English.
· With regards to the specific needs of the targeted direct and non-direct beneficiaries of the project, have the project objectives and strategies been in line with their specific needs and expectations?
· Considering the international situation and the Turkey political context that took place during the project implementation period, were the project and its objectives contextually relevant?
· To what extent DDD policies and principles have been applied, what was their effect on the intervention? Is the sector of intervention defined for this program an appropriate Mental Health and Psychosocial Support MHPSS and Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation support?
· Has the target population been well defined?
· To what extent did objective and results have been achieved?
· What were the major factors influencing the achievement and non-achievement of the objective and expected results?
· What were the major factors influencing the implementation of the activities?
· What difficulties were faced during the implementation and what were their impacts?
· To what extent did the partnership approach impact positively or negatively the effectiveness of the project?
· What complaint mechanism has been put on the place?
· Which strategies have been implemented to ensure sustainability after termination of the project?
· What are the factors that can affect the sustainability?
· Has DDD ensured a proper coordination with Health authorities to ensure the continuity of the collaboration in the future and a potential handover of services to them?
· Was an efficient management in place to support the project implementation?
· Have the activities been implemented as planned?
· To which extent have the specific objective and the expected results been achieved through these activities?
· What is the cost-effectiveness of the program, to which extent inputs are well used for an intended output?
· Analysis of what was planned and what was actually delivered. What constraints and difficulties have impacted the achievement of the expected esults and the specific objective? Have they been anticipated and sufficiently addressed?
· What has been successfully achieved. What were the enablers of these achievements?
· recommendations on how efficiency can be increased and how core lessons from this analysis could be integrated into future project planning.
· Has the project improved MHPSS well being of refugees?
· Did the project contribute to build the resilience of Syrian refugees in Turkey?
· Has the project had any negative or positive effects that were not anticipated?
· What was the added value of a holistic mobile clinic response?
· Did working in partnership improve the efficiency and quality of the project? How?
· What coordination mechanisms and technical supports have been put in place between partners during the project?
· How were the difficulties of implementation tackled along the implementation?
· What were the strengths and weaknesses of the different partnerships?
Additional Useful Criteria
· How were the beneficiaries involved in the different phases of the project?
· How the intervention took into account the interests and choices of the beneficiaries?
Quantitative and qualitative methods
The evaluation should follow OECD/DAC criteria and DeGEval standards. It is advisable to have a mix of different methods. They can be quantitative as well as qualitative and can involve a desk review phase, interviews of staff, beneficiaries and partners, field visit.
The consultant/s should propose a detailed methodology in one inception report.
· Program design (proposal and modification request)
· Reports (monthly reports, database, monitool)
· Donor’s documents
· Training modules and reports, Supervision reports
· Data documentation tools created and used
Working language will be English. Relevant documents will be made available in English and translated if necessary.
Key persons involved are:
DDD Steering Committee: President, General Director, Operations or Technical Coordinator, MEAL Coordinator, Mental Health Coordinator, Medical referent / supervisor, Field Coordinators (Izmir, Istanbul, Antakya), Grants Coordinator
Partner’s staff: UOSSM
Staff in the facilities and beneficiaries
Expected Deliverables and Presentation of Findings
A. Inception Report
Documents reviewed, proposed methodology (questionnaires, focus group questions, interview grid) and work plan to be presented and validated to the steering committee before departure to the field.
B. Preliminary Results and recommendations
The preliminary results and recommendations are to be presented to the field project team after the field visit and before departure: a PPT presentation is requested and used as a basis for feedback to the team and subsequent discussions. These preliminary results will be submitted to the steering committee for their opinion.
C. Final Report
The main body of the evaluation report should not exceed 40/ 50 pages, excluding annexes, be submitted in Word, 12-point font and single spacing, and must include the following:
Executive summary (maximum of 5 pages)
List of acronyms
Context (description of the project)
Evaluation objectives and chosen criteria
Methodology and limitations
Principal results and analysis
Conclusions and recommendations (presented according to evaluation criteria)
Completed recommendations follow-up sheet
Annexes: ToR, a list of persons met and timetable, questionnaires, interview guides, observation grids, etc.
Presentation of findings
One presentation at field level must be done after the field visit with DDD key staff.
One presentation must be done with the main conclusions/recommendations with coordination staff.
Organising the Evaluation
The consultant team will be provided with a working space and connected to printers at DDD offices in Istanbul and at field level if required.
Means of communication
The consultant team should bring its audio tools if needed (audio-recorder, camera, etc.). Costs of communication should be included in the consultant budget.
All movements are submitted to the prior green light of DDD logistic and security focal points.
As much as possible, DDD will provide the consultant team with local transportation back and forth to evaluation sites, otherwise, a taxi will be booked.
All travel and accommodation expenses will be covered by the evaluator and should be included in the consultant budget.
DDD will provide the consultant team with field contact list.
Upon prior request from the Consultant team, DDD could allocate an interpreter for field visits. Costs related to the needs of written/narrative translation should be included in the consultant budget.
The consultant should refer to DDD security guidelines.
Composition of the Evaluation Team
The consultant will be responsible for setting up his/her team. DDD staff will help in scheduling meetings, contacts, and logistics.
The mission should be completed within 8 Weeks.
The field phase shall be conducted between Week 2 and Week 5
The draft report is expected on Week 6.
The steering committee will provide feedback on the draft report by Week 7.
The final report is due on Week 8.
The schedule can be modified depending on events and, more particularly, the security situation.
The steering committee is tasked with validating the proposed evaluation objectives, supervising the evaluation mission and ensuring that the results of the evaluation are disseminated.
The steering committee is composed of:
· The MEAL Coordinator
· The MHPSS and Medical Technical Coordinators
· The General Director
Total budget for evaluation/capitalisation exercise: 15 000 Euros
Skills Required to Lead the Evaluation Process
The evaluator requires the following skills:
· Proven record in evaluation of humanitarian projects
· Professional experience with NGOs, with focus on health programmes
· Strong analytical skills and self-sufficient way of working
· Preferable professional experience in Mental Health / GBV/ PTRC
· Experience in the Middle East an asset
· Fluency in English (Turkish / Arabic is an asset)
Consultants invited to apply will be provided with a full application pack of 10 to 15 pages maximum, comprising the following elements accessible at this e-mail address: email@example.com and specifically headed ‘TURKEY Evaluation’:
Technical proposal including:
· Understanding of the Terms of Reference
· Technical approach developed and detailed methodology
· Composition of the team, division of responsibilities between its members, CVs submitted and availability of members
· Provisional timetable for the evaluation and an estimate of costs per person per day
· References from similar previous assignments
· A sworn statement as to the absence of any conflict of interest
Financial proposal including:
· Total budget including all tax and incorporating a budget break-down (fees, living expenses, travel, , etc.).
Submit Application to: firstname.lastname@example.org